The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act in the context of retrospective operation and its relationship with Section 6.

1. With consent of the parties, this appeal was heard along with I.A. No. 9816 of 1999 for final disposal.

2. This appeal is directed against part of the order dated 27.3.1999 passed in Partition Suit No. 87 of 1994, whereby learned Subordinate Judge V, Muzaffarpur has rejected the petition dated 8.3.1999 filed on behalf of the plaintiff to restrain the defendants by an order of temporary injunction from selling the land detailed in Schedule I of the plaint and also from getting the trees cut till the disposal of the suit.

3. The plaintiff claimed to be the daughter of the predeceased daughter Ram Chameli Devi and filed suit for partition against sister of her mother and her sons. Admittedly the suit land originally belonged to Sri Jagat Prasad Singh, Maternal grand father of the plaintiff and father of defendant no. 1. Sri Jagat Prasad Singh died in the year 1990 leaving the properties intestate. According to the plaintiff the said properties were inherited by her and the defendant first party having equal half and half share. It is alleged that the defendants in collusion with the husband of defendant first party have brought into existence the deed of gift dated 31.12,1977 purported to have been executed by Sri Jagat Prasad Singh in favour of defendant no. 2 for an area of 10 acres 34 decimals out of Schedule I land. They also brought into existence another deed of gift dated 31.01.1982 said to be executed by Sri Jagat Prasad Singh in favour of defendant no. 3. She has further stated that in order to give the colour of genuineness of transaction through the aforesaid deed of gift they also brought into existence another deed of gift dated 31.12.1977 purported to have been executed by Sri Jagat Prasad Singh in favour of the plaintiff in respect of an area of 3 acres of land. According to the plaintiff Sri Singh was not capable to execute any deed nor he was capable to understand the nature of documents since the year 1973-74 and all the three deed of gifts are void, collusive and never executed by Sri Jagat Prasad Singh in perfect mind knowing the contents as noted therein. The plaintiff has prayed to set aside the said documents. The defendants claimed that they are bonafide donees of late Jagat Prasad Singh and unquestionably in possession of the suit land.

4. It appears that earlier also the plaintiff filed injunction petition on 15.9.1994 and defendants filed show cause on 30.9.1994, but it was never moved and finally on 12.11.1997 on agreement of both the parties that the suit itself be heard the plaintiffs lawyer did not press the petition for injunction because the suit was ready for hearing and accordingly, injunction petition was rejected as not pressed. The hearing of the suit started on 14.12.1998 and after examination of eight witnesses, plaintiff filed time petition on 28.1.1999. The plaintiff again filed present petition on 8.3.1999 for the aforementioned relief, which has been rejected by the impugned order. The Court found that the plaintiff deliberately delayed disposal of the suit otherwise the suit itself would have been disposed of earlier. The Court also found that no prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. Regarding irreparable loss the Court found that the law of lis pendens is there to guard the interest of a party to the suit and also that the plaintiff is not going to suffer any loss or injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned Subordinate Judge has- erred in rejecting the prayer for grant of temporary injunction for untenable reasons. According to the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents the suit itself is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no legitimate claim for the suit properties. According to the learned counsel for the Respondents, the plaintiffs mother died long before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came in